The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1887-10-27


their wheat was exchanged. Q
value Of labor in Ohio2. How can the
farmer pay as much to his hand if he only
gets sixty yards of cloth when he should
have had one hundred yardsf Now, in
precisely the same way, If a mechanic, or
two mechanics, order through their mer-
chant the purchase Of one hundred yards of
cloth in Europe, they will have to pay the
price of sixty-six yards additional 10 the
government for the mere privilege Of using
what their money had already paid for.
How does this effect their laborp But il
may be said that they had better buy
cloth made in this country. But they re-
ply that they get more cisth in Europe
with their money. and that Is the reason
they send to Europe for it. In other
words, it resolves itself into this. they get
higher wages, derive a greater benefit from
their labor, If they are permitted to buy
where they can buy cheapest.
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES.
But it is said that if our tariff is reduced
it will close our manufactures. and throw
labor out of employment. There is no
foundation for this assertion. Under the
low tariff in force between 1850 aud 1850
our manufacturing industries increased as
they never did before and have not done
since. The increase in ten years was
eighty-six per cent. The truth is, our
tariff is very oppressive to many, and
rulnous to some branches Of manufact ctur-
ing. Our manufacturers of carriages, fur
niture, implements and machinery, of
saddles and harness, Of shoes, of thou
sand things which can be, and ought to
be, made in this country as cheap If not
cheaper than anywhere else in the
world, are, as against British manu-
facturers, handicapped by tariff
raised prices of portion of the raw ma
terials they need. How can man make a
carriage in Ohio that he can sell in Mexico,
or Canada, or the West Indies or South
America in competition with British
manufacturer when he is compelled to pay
thirty, or forty, or sixty per cent more for
his cloth and iron. and steel, and paint,
and varnish, and tacks, and screws, and
leather than his British brother pays? We
have allowed our competitors to take pos
session of the manufacturing for the world,
because in the interests of few PCT in
dustries and pet capitalists we will not
give our manufacturers living chance.
This policy has ruined our shipping
business, which was once so great. We
have given up the commerce of the world
to Great Britain. She will take, except a
few articles which she does not produce
the products of all the world without tax.
She invites the whole world to trade with
her freely, and the whole world does trade
with her. Her ships come to our ports and
carry away our wheat and cotton. q She
loads her ships with her manufactured pro-
ducts, made cheap because she does not
tax raw material, and sends them to Brazil
for our c5fee, and to Cuba for our sugar.
The Engliehman does the business
and charges us well. you may be sure,
for all he does. We have no ships
to send to Brazil for our coffee, or to Cuba
for our sugar, and if we had them we
would have to sell them or they would rot
on our wharves, because we have 20 cargoes
of goods to go to Brazil or Cuba, except a
little agricultural produce. We buy Of
Cuba fifty millions of dollars worth of sugar
a year. We sell to Cuba only Sc, ,000, 900
OF cur products q year. We pay for our
eugar and coffee with bills on London,
drawn against our wheat and cotton. Our
tariff law ought to be entitled, can act to
assure the industrial and commercial su-
premacy of Great Britain"
OPERATION OF THE TARIFF.
Now, gentlemen, I will weary you with
but one further illustration of the operation
of our tariff, Between 1850 and 1850 we
had a very low tariff on wool. A part of
the time it was entirely free. In 1867
the high wool tariff was passed. 1t
is claimed that high tariff on wool is
necessary to enable farmers to raise sheep.
At the time of the passage Of the high
wool tariff there were in the States of Ohio,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, In
diana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa,
29, 9,S79, ,222 sheep. Eleven years afterward
there were in the same States only
1885, 600 sheepi and fifteen years
after the passage of the law there
were not half as many sheep in all
those States as they were at the time of
its passage. Does this lsok as if a tariff
on wool were beneficial to sheep hus-
bandry2 But suppose the tariff does raise
the price of wool, as our market reports
prove it never did, what is the effect?
The average number of sheep in flock
east of the Mississippi does not probably
average more than twenty-five head, and
the average product of wool per flock is
not more than 125 pounds. The present
tariff tax paid on imported wool is SIS
cents per pound. If the wool of an aver
ape focx Ia increased in value tn the fnll